Consept

Its crazy that Trumps manipulations have to be taken account for in a democratic election

Selling arms to Saudi Arabia doesnt seem a way to achieve peace in the middle east but maybe thats turquoise level that i dont understand - "On May 20, 2017, U.S. President Trump and Saudi Arabia's Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed a series of letters of intent for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to purchase arms from the United States totaling US$110 billion immediately, and $350 billion over 10 years." (from wikipedia)

What facts would show that hes turquoise? If you cant judge him by surface behavior which is the only thing weve got to go on really, as well as analysis from other professionals, then what are you using to judge that hes tier 2?

Why would switching parties indicate transferring through spiral levels? Can you point to anything 'green' that hes done previously, considering hes shut down many green initiatives? Take these few Turquoise traits Unity, Deeper & deeper levels of interconnectedness, Selfless living, Sacrifice self for greater consciousness, Meditation, yoga, contemplation, self-inquiry, Not-knowing. Do you think he has shown any of these? I think you should really try and understand spiral dynamics a bit more. Appreciate that you may not have a firm grip on the different levels and how to categorise into them. If you look at other potential turquoise people ie Sadhguru, Mooji etc they do not seem in anyway similar to Trump, its actually laughable to imagine them together. They also dont need to do elaborate game playing to manipulate people. Can you point to any others you consider turquoise?

You can predict he will win but how do you get that hes turquoise? These are turquoise values taken from the mega thread as a reminder - Consciousness Elevating mankind’s consciousness Truth Deep metaphysical insight Wisdom, the wisdom of nature Mysticism, spirituality, nonduality God, divinity Holism, integration, synthesis vs analysis Integrating all religions & science Left & right brain synthesis Honesty, transparency, authenticity Being vs knowing, doing, having Simplicity, flowing with nature Minimalist sustainable living Collaborative synergy Human wellness Healing at all levels: physical, emotional, spiritual Exploring altered states of consciousness Intuition Channeling: direct downloads from infinite intelligence Supernatural creativity Spiritual purification Awakening, transcendence, liberation Unconditional love, compassion for all Emotional mastery Presence, mindfulness Paradox Esoteric teachings Gratitude Unity Deeper & deeper levels of interconnectedness Selfless living Sacrifice self for greater consciousness Meditation, yoga, contemplation, self-inquiry Not-knowing Humility Spontaneity, playfulness, self-amusement The really big picture

huh?

Yes thats fair, i can see how marriages with age differences are more likely to be unsuccessful, but in general most relationships dont end in marriage. So if its not inherently weird and wrong for age gap relationships to occur then i dont see the problem, assuming theres no manipulation etc which can also happen in relationships with closer age gaps.

No worries

Exactly my point though any relationship can be manipulative or have a toxic dynamic, i dont think thats something thats exclusive to age gap relationships. Age gap relationships can also be healthy as youve also mentioned. So i dont think automatically its a bad thing or its an indication of creepiness or abuse of power. Its easy to look at it on the surface like that but i think its really each individual case has to be judged on its own merit.

Everything ok? If ive caused offence it definitely wasnt intentional, hope your day gets better

You said sexual harassment so i was following that up, you can clarify your point if you like maybe i missed what you were saying

It can be seen as predatory and in some cases that might completely be the case but i dont think its enough to just say it is because of the difference in power and influence. I would call a double standard as well because there are countless examples of older women going out with much younger men in the public eye (Madonna, J.Lo, Joan Collins, Lisa Bonet etc etc) but these are never even considered to be predatory, although they could be. Also if the older man is attractive then its not really seen as predatory, a good example is Jonny Depp or Leo Di Caprio. In fact in Jonny Depps case it could be argued, and is being argued in court, that the younger woman was actually an abuser. Giuliani shouldve known better considering his status but i dont think its inherently wrong for an older man to flirt with a younger woman, its maybe not advisable though.

Im not sure, i mean if the girls obviously flirting would and the Rudy doesnt respond, would that be sexual harassment against the girl? Or because hes responded postively to her advances is it then sexual harassment against Rudy? Also what if the ages were different, like she was interviewing someone who was 28 and they liked each other? I dont really see the sexual harassment in it, furthermore she invited him into the hotel room. Seedy yes, but a legal thing im not so sure. Trump couldnt wait to get out of there

There was a lot more stuff in SBC's series 'This Is America' where it was actually quite damning for the people he 'tricked', the Giuliani clip is really just a honey trap, I dont think theres much to it, conservatives might not be happy with it but its just a biological fact that most men would flirt back if someone they find attractive is flirting with them, i dont really see a way around that. If the girl wasnt flirting and Rudy was being creepy then maybe thered be some kind of moral issue. Anyway heres the Trump/SBC clip, Trump is claiming he knew all along, he is a coral genius so maybe he did -

The point with Drew is that he was completely dogmatic about beliefs that were provably wrong, not only that he thought everyone who was not aligned with his way of thinking was a sheep and ignorant. Even enlightened masters wouldnt have that type of arrogance thay would accept that they dont know everything. Also if someone was religious and had the same mindset as Drew and was on here saying that no one gets it and theyre sheep because the mainstream doesnt want you to know about God. It would provide 0 benefit for the forum. So that could of locked in mindset will always be a distraction for people on the forum and i understand why he was banned. On a person to person level i feel sorry for him as im sure hes not a bad guy hes just a bit lost and in a sense, if he could actually use the forum as a learning tool rather than trying to reinforce his beliefs, he could get a lot of benefit from it.

Yeah saying you're smart is another way of saying that other people are not as smart as you. Thing is there are so many different types of intelligence, emotional, creative, physical, to just blanketly say you're smart is very limited. It's an ego trick of trying to always be better in some way than others

I eat meat, but there are definitely issues with it. One is the suffering inflicted through the farming process, animals are sentient beings, maybe their brains aren't as complexed as ours but they can still feel pain, fear and a wide variety of complexed emotions. The way the current farming process operates causes a lot of pain. Also there is no balance we consume much more than we need, no other animal does this. As we become more conscious we will realise the suffering we're causing. In the same way as people would've justified killing humans in the past and probably still do, we justify torturing and eating meat but as consciousness rises I don't think we will consume animals on the same way or at all

I think this is a great point, a lot of very intelligent scientist and academics have trouble communicating ideas to lay people, this creates a big divide because in turns people off as the information is inaccessible. So this is really a skill in of itself and very, very important, I would say Leo is pretty good at it, but i think with this topic and other topics where people are really tied to beliefs you have to factor in the heavy bias in trying to hold onto established beliefs, this is very hard to break down

Did Trump take hydroxychloroquine, if not why arent people making a big deal that he didnt considering how much people went on about it?

Do you disagree with what he said on the pedophile issue? If so what's your take on it?

Theres people that genuinely believe flat earth, i know some personally. They would be offended if you said the theory was planted by agencies. Also this is really speculation, we dont know that agencies planted theories like this and how would they know this one would stick

I read somewhere that the best thing a car salesman can say to lead to a sale when asked a question is 'i dont know'. Reason being if hes honest about this he would also be honest about the things he does know and so it builds trust. I think honest marketing and sales could be more effective than telling stories and pretending you know everything

As the cliche goes when the student is ready the master will appear, for now those disregarding Leo are not ready for the teachings, they are holding onto beliefs. Theres no spiritual teacher i can think of that is not in some way blunt, the point of a teacher is to strip away belief, if a belief is questioned the ego is likely to attack, theres no way around this. What i realised personally is that if a spiritual teacher triggers or scares me i should listen to him more because that is the feeling of ego and long held beliefs being stripped away

Who would it be important to make a distinction to? Anyone who wants to find out the truth of the situation, the person who was abused, their family, the police. Having someone untrained and biased distorting things will not help to find the truth of the situation, therefore if this is something they consistently do it would make sense to label them in such a way. If you look at a real world example of Sandy Hook, if Alex Jones was just seen as an investigator he couldve encouraged a lot more people to attack the grieving families, as it was that happened enough. This type of investigation is distinct from relatively unbiased investigation, as such it shouldnt be classed as the same thing, doesnt need to be 'conspiracy theory' but lumping it in with police investigations seems quite ridiculous.

OK let's take this example, if someone is abused that is a direct experience of something, they then call in someone who can investigate what happened. Imagine if someone, of their own accord started investigating abuses that were previously proven not to have happened and the investigation cherry picked and in some cases distorted truth, perhaps unconsciously because they believed the abuse happened. They then ran the name of who they were investigating through the mud and claimed that the professionals who investigated the abuse were paid off by the person that allegedly did it, even though they had no proof. Let's say they constantly do this and it actually affects real investigation. Would it be important to make a distinction between the person that does this and someone like a police officer whose job it is to investigate the abuse?